[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-230?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17938143#comment-17938143
]
Niall Pemberton edited comment on ATTIC-230 at 3/25/25 8:31 AM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi [~hboutemy]
Answers below regarding stdcxx and updating site source...
h3. 1. STDCXX
According to [Infra's Site Source
Checker|https://infra-reports.apache.org/#sitesource], stdcxx is served from
two locations:
* [stdcxx.apache.org|https://stdcxx.apache.org/] is from [svn/asf:
stdcxx/site|https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/stdcxx/site/]
* [stdcxx.apache.org/doc|https://stdcxx.apache.org/doc] is from [svn/asf:
stdcxx/trunk/doc|https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/stdcxx/trunk/doc/]
So AFAIK, this is not a source update and both patches are needed.
h3. 2. Updating Sites' Sources
When I did ATTIC-230 (_svn_), I just focused on fixing the deployed sites -
mainly because of the effort of tracking down where the source is. However for
ATTIC-234 (_GitHub_) I have included some _opportunistic_ updates to some of
the sites' sources when it seemed obvious and in the same repo, but different
branch.
It was actually [~sebb] who raised the concern in [this
mail|https://lists.apache.org/thread/cq30kw0k4jjv4931sndxnm454ywgl8nx] when he
said:
{quote}the patches only address the generated site, not the source, so were any
site be rebuilt, the references would return.{quote}
[I responded to
that|https://lists.apache.org/thread/s6wgwj5lr319j9d9y8d502xksfj84wl7] saying
_"it is something I could look at"_. and in ATTIC-235 I have done that for all
the SVN sites.
Personally, I think it is worth updating the site source to _*future-proof*_
against the possibility of the changes being reversed if the sites were ever
re-generated and the only downside IMO is the extra effort involved.
I believe there are some sites that are *_automatically_* rebuilt by
*_buildbots_* when the source is updated (those in
[repos/infra|https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/] ?) and my guess is thats the
most likely scenario.
However, this is obviously a policy decision for the PMC, so happy to go along
with whatever you decide.
was (Author: niallp):
Hi [~hboutemy]
Answers below regarding stdcxx and updating site source...
h3. 1. STDCXX
According to [Infra's Site Source Checker|http://example.com/], stdcxx is
served from two locations:
* [stdcxx.apache.org|https://stdcxx.apache.org/] is from [svn/asf:
stdcxx/site|https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/stdcxx/site/]
* [stdcxx.apache.org/doc|https://stdcxx.apache.org/doc] is from [svn/asf:
stdcxx/trunk/doc|https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/stdcxx/trunk/doc/]
So AFAIK, this is not a source update and both patches are needed.
h3. 2. Updating Sites' Sources
When I did ATTIC-230 (_svn_), I just focused on fixing the deployed sites -
mainly because of the effort of tracking down where the source is. However for
ATTIC-234 (_GitHub_) I have included some _opportunistic_ updates to some of
the sites' sources when it seemed obvious and in the same repo, but different
branch.
It was actually [~sebb] who raised the concern in [this
mail|https://lists.apache.org/thread/cq30kw0k4jjv4931sndxnm454ywgl8nx] when he
said:
{quote}the patches only address the generated site, not the source, so were any
site be rebuilt, the references would return.{quote}
[I responded to
that|https://lists.apache.org/thread/vkc09x0yjlm9my6y78pnbbvoxvfo9zwc] saying
_"it is something I could look at"_. and in ATTIC-235 I have done that for all
the SVN sites.
Personally, I think it is worth updating the site source to _*future-proof*_
against the possibility of the changes being reversed if the sites were ever
re-generated and the only downside IMO is the extra effort involved.
I believe there are some sites that are *_automatically_* rebuilt by
*_buildbots_* when the source is updated (those in
[repos/infra|https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/] ?) and my guess is thats the
most likely scenario.
However, this is obviously a policy decision for the PMC, so happy to go along
with whatever you decide.
> Remove Google Analytics from Attic Projects' websites in SVN / svnpubsub
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ATTIC-230
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-230
> Project: Attic
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Niall Pemberton
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: cocoon-site-ga-v1.patch,
> continuum-site-publish-ga-v1.patch, directmemory-site-content-ga-v1.patch,
> eagle-site-ga-baidu-v1.patch, hama-site-trunk-ga-v1.patch,
> ibatis-site-final-ga-v1.patch, marmotta-ga-v1.patch, ode-ga-v1.patch,
> reef-site-ga-v1.patch, stanbol-ga-v1.patch, stdcxx-site-ga-v1.patch,
> stdcxx-trunk-doc-ga-v1.patch, stratos-ga-v1.patch, tajo-site-ga-v1.patch,
> tuscany-site-publish-ga-v1.patch, twill-css-js.patch, twill-site-ga-v1.patch,
> wink-ga-v1.patch
>
>
> The following projects in the Attic use *_Google Analytics_* in their
> websites - these projects' websites are all published from SVN - attaching
> patches to remove GA
> h1. COCOON
> Description: Remove Google Analytics from *1 file*
> * Relative To: [https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/site/site/]
> * Patch File: *cocoon-site-ga-v1.patch*
> h1. -CONTINUUM-
> Description: Remove Google Analytics from *3,205 files*
> * Relative To: [https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/site-publish/]
> * Patch File: *continuum-site-publish-ga-v1.patch*
> h1. -DIRECTMEMORY-
> Description: Remove Google Analytics from *615 files*
> * Relative To: [https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/directmemory/site-content/]
> * Patch File: *directmemory-site-content-ga-v1.patch*
> h1. EAGLE
> Description: Remove Google & Baidu Analytics from *51 files*
> * Relative To: [https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/eagle/site]
> * Patch File: *eagle-site-ga-baidu-v1.patch*
> h1. HAMA
> Description: Remove Google Analytics from *23 files*
> * Relative To: [https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hama/site/trunk]
> * Patch File: *hama-site-trunk-ga-v1.patch*
> h1. IBATIS
> Description: Remove Google Analytics from *1 file*
> * Relative To: [https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ibatis/site-final]
> * Patch File: *ibatis-site-final-ga-v1.patch*
> h1. MARMOTTA
> Description: Remove Google Analytics from *68 files*
> * Relative To: [https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/sites/marmotta/]
> * Patch File: *marmotta-ga-v1.patch*
> h1. ODE
> Description: Remove Google Analytics from *90 files*
> * Relative To: [https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/sites/ode/]
> * Patch File: *ode-ga-v1.patch*
> h1. REEF
> Description: Remove Google Analytics from *24 files*
> * Relative To: [https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/reef/site/]
> * Patch File: *reef-site-ga-v1.patch*
> h1. STANBOL
> Description: Remove Google Analytics from *171 files*
> * Relative To: [https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/sites/stanbol/]
> * Patch File: *stanbol-ga-v1.patch*
> h1. STDCXX
> Description: Remove Google Analytics from *560 files*
> * Relative To: [https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/stdcxx/site/]
> * Patch File: *stdcxx-site-ga-v1.patch*
> * Relative To: [https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/stdcxx/trunk/doc]
> * Patch File: *stdcxx-trunk-doc-ga-v1.patch*
> h1. STRATOS
> Description: Remove Google Analytics from *17 files*
> * Relative To: [https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/sites/stratos/]
> * Patch File: *stratos-ga-v1.patch*
> h1. TAJO
> Description: Remove Google Analytics from *32 files*
> * Relative To: [https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tajo/site]
> * Patch File: *tajo-site-ga-v1.patch*
> h1. -TUSCANY-
> Description: Remove Google Analytics from *497 files*
> * Relative To:
> [https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/site/trunk/site-publish]
> * Patch File: *tuscany-site-publish-ga-v1.patch*
> h1. TWILL
> Description: Remove Google Analytics from *16 files*
> * Relative To: [https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/twill/site/]
> * Patch File: *twill-site-ga-v1.patch*
> h1. WINK
> Description: Remove Google Analytics from *8 files*
> * Relative To: [https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/sites/wink/]
> * Patch File: *wink-ga-v1.patch*
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
